Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > ** Key proposal: "one tree, multiple libraries" > > Justin has long argued that there is no point in having apr and apr-util > as separate trees since everyone uses both or neither, and I agree. The > fact that every downstream application picks up depdendencies on half > the third-party libraries in existence by linking against apr-util - > regardless of whether or not the app uses them - is also a real problem. > > I think the way forward is to consolidate apr and apr-util into a single > tree, but where the code exposes a dependency on a third-party library, > build that code into a separate library. So along with libapr, you get > a libapr-dbm for the DBM code, a libapr-xml for the XML code, etc. (I > know various people have talked about various things along these lines > before; not claiming this is an original idea! ;)
I agree APR and APR-util should be combined into one, but I hate the notion of chunking the library into multiple parts. If a developer wants to disable a feature, then a simple --without-xml or --without-dbm should suffice. What is the benefit in chunking a library? In the case with embedded projects (which I work on), I am more inclined to simply disable the bits I am not using on the configure line and be done. I don't care that they are split into libapr-xml and friends. Regards, Ryan
